About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CSPAN 2
MSNBCW 2
CSPAN2 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
married. d.o.m.a. about federal benefits when married. >> exactly. >> interrelated, but not the same issue. >> yes, because even if the supreme court says that prop 8 is struck down, that doesn't require any state to permit same-sex marriage. it will still be up to the states one way or the other. the only question in the doma case is whether the federal government will extend about 1,000 benefits, just like it would to opposite-sex couples, to gay couple who is get married. >> busy week, thank you. >>> the issue of same-sex marriage is among the most contentious facing the country. with both sides claiming they have moral and legal grounds to make their respective arguments. how the debate comes out could reshape how the country defines marriage for generations to come. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done that with race, we've done that with women, we've done that with every discriminated class. >> it's difficult for americans and our public policy
and the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern, and you can hear the as soon asnts on -- the audio is released and these will be air at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on tuesday, a justice department official told a house judiciary subcommittee that the government is open to the idea of requiring warrants for obtaining electronic communications during criminal investigations but added that there are situations where the warrant should not be required. the hearing was looking at revisions for the 1986 electronic communications privacy act. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for the opening statement. the electronics privacy at this complicated and outdated, and largely unconstitutional. it made sense when it was drafted but the role of the internet and electronics communication in the daily lives is vastly different than it was during the reagan administration ended needed reforms to better protect privacy, to allow the growth of electronic c
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
, and the doma cases and that outcome. >> marriage is a health issue from a foundational perspective inasmuch as i mentioned earlier. people tend to be healthier. you have a caretaker in the home and you have the report and it's probably easier for you to get insurance coverage so all of that -- somebody being healthier so marriage equals health in many cases but more broadly as the perspective of lgbt movement and community organizing is that health is really foundational. health is what comes first. it's what you need in order to enjoy the benefits of marriage equality. it's what you need to be able to serve in the military and it ordered to go to work every day and take advantage of protectioprotectio ends we are fighting for to make sure the lgbt folks don't get fired. health is really the underpinnunderpinning, the ground on which so many of our other victories or other old are built and so fighting for the ability of lgbt people to be healthy and to stay healthy to protect themselves and their families and their communities is really i think as they said the foundation on which so much
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
, republicans came in though defend doma. the case comes in a different political climate than four years ago when prop 8 became law. an example, yesterday republican adviser karl rove said in the next election he could see pub one of the republican candidates favoring same-sex marriage. >> we will be covering a lot next week. thank you very much. >>> an apology from the irs over a training video that parodied star trek and paid for by taxpayer money. kelly o'donnell is in washington with more on that story. good morning to you. >> reporter: good morning. well, anytime your tax money is wasted, it's frustrating but especially so when it is the irs that's accused of poor judgment. a congressional committee found this star trek spoof didn't have any training value in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. ♪ the irs spent $60,000. >> captain log. >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate "star trek" parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave us the wrong order. >> how fast can you get out of here. >> reporter: and of course mr. spock. but they aren't actors. no they ar
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8